38.6c New Delhi, India, Friday, December 19, 2025
Top Stories Supreme Court
Political NEWS Legislative Corner Celebstreet International Videos
Subscribe Contact Us
close
Judiciary

Medanta Hospital, Indore slapped With 25 lakhs Penalty Over Sexual Harassment By Madhya Pradesh HC [Read Order]

By LawStreet News Network      18 September, 2019 02:09 PM      0 Comments
Medanta Hospital, Indore slapped With 25 lakhs Penalty Over Sexual Harassment By Madhya Pradesh HC [Read Order]

Indore Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court on September 16, 2019, in the case of Global Health Private Limited v. Local Complaints Committee, District Indore and others holding Medanta Hospital, Indore guilty in the sexual harassment case that took place about three years ago in the hospital has asked it to pay compensation of Rs 25 lakh to a former female employee within eight weeks.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Rohit Arya passed the order while hearing an appeal filed by Global Health Private Limited which operates Medanta Super Specialty Hospital. The appeal was filed against the order of district complaints committee, Indore that had imposed a fine of Rs 50,000 and proposed criminal action for defamation against the hospital.

In this case, the woman, who was the senior manager at the hospital, had complained to the hospital management about three years ago that Dr. Gavrinath Mandiga, the hospital superintendent, sexually harassed her. When the complaint was not processed, the woman complained to the hospital MD via e-mail. Despite this, no action was taken. Inversely, the hospital management issued the order on April 19, 2016, and fired the woman from her job.

As there was no internal complaints committee in the hospital, the woman complained to the Women Welfare Section of Women and Child Development Ministry on March 18, 2016. Subsequently, her complaint was forwarded to the Chief Executive Officer, District Indore and the same was made over to the Local Committee for enquiry.

Local complaints committee recorded the statement of the woman on July 3, 2016, and passed an order against the hospital on August 18, 2017. The Committee reached a conclusion that the complainant was subjected to sexual harassment as defined under Section 2(n) read with Section 3(2) of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. On enquiry, the Committee also found out that the internal complaints committee was not in existence at the Hospital.

The hospital management filed a petition in the High Court challenging the order of the Committee.

Learned Counsel Rahul Sethi, appearing for the woman, submitted before the court that a sexual harassment committee should be constituted legally in every institution, but there was no committee in the hospital. Despite constant complaints, the management did not take any action against the culprit, instead the woman was fired. Due to the attitude of the hospital management, the woman had to suffer mental anguish. Her social reputation was also hurt. She also suffered financial losses due to her removal from the job by the hospital management.

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the court concluded that the complainant is held to have been subjected to unwelcome sexual harassment at workplace within the meaning of section 2(n) read with section 3(2)(ii), (iii), (iv) & (v) of the Act, 2013.

Accordingly, the court ordered the hospital management to pay Rs 25 lakh to the woman within eight weeks.

The court also imposed a penalty of Rs 50,000 on the hospital for failing to constitute internal complaints committee for workplace harassment as per law and asked the hospital to issue character and experience certificates to the complainant for the period she was employed. The court also asked the hospital to pay other benefits like EPF and other monetary dues, if not paid.

The court, however quashed the committees order of proposed criminal action for defamation under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, against the petitioners.

[Read Order]



Share this article:

User Avatar
About:


Leave a feedback about this
TRENDING NEWS

sc-quashes-fir-against-r-ashoka-in-land-allotment-case
Trending Judiciary
SC Quashes FIR Against R. Ashoka in Land Allotment Case [Read Judgment]

Supreme Court quashes ACB FIR against Karnataka MLA R Ashoka in land allotment case, citing lack of sanction, malice and political vendetta.

18 December, 2025 07:58 PM
delhi-hc-appoints-sole-arbitrator-in-meghalaya-hotels-irctc-dispute-reiterates-bar-on-psu-curated-arbitration-panels
Trending Judiciary
Delhi HC Appoints Sole Arbitrator in Meghalaya Hotels–IRCTC Dispute; Reiterates Bar on PSU-Curated Arbitration Panels [Read Order]

Delhi High Court appoints sole arbitrator in Meghalaya Hotels–IRCTC dispute, reiterating Supreme Court’s bar on PSU-curated arbitration panels.

18 December, 2025 08:23 PM

TOP STORIES

sc-orders-aiims-to-form-secondary-medical-board-to-evaluate-passive-euthanasia-for-man-in-vegetative-state-for-13-years
Trending Judiciary
SC Orders AIIMS to Form Secondary Medical Board to Evaluate Passive Euthanasia for Man in Vegetative State for 13 Years [Read Order]

Supreme Court directs AIIMS to form a Secondary Medical Board to assess passive euthanasia for a man in a vegetative state for 13 years.

13 December, 2025 06:00 PM
endless-compassion-not-permissible-sc-bars-claims-for-higher-post-after-compassionate-appointment
Trending Judiciary
‘Endless Compassion Not Permissible’: SC Bars Claims for Higher Post After Compassionate Appointment [Read Judgment]

Supreme Court rules that employees cannot seek higher posts after accepting compassionate appointment, calling such claims “endless compassion.”

13 December, 2025 06:54 PM
property-tax-appeal-only-tax-amount-payable-penal-interest-not-mandatory-kerala-hc
Trending Judiciary
Property Tax Appeal: Only Tax Amount Payable, Penal Interest Not Mandatory: Kerala HC [Read Judgment]

Kerala High Court rules that municipalities cannot insist on penal interest for entertaining tax appeals; only the tax amount under Section 509(11) is required.

13 December, 2025 07:09 PM
sc-expands-ambit-of-posh-act-restrictive-interpretation-would-undermine-remedial-intent
Trending Judiciary
SC Expands Ambit of POSH Act: “Restrictive Interpretation Would Undermine Remedial Intent” [Read Judgment]

Supreme Court rules ICC at aggrieved woman’s workplace has jurisdiction under POSH Act, rejecting restrictive interpretation and reinforcing women’s right to safety.

13 December, 2025 07:13 PM

ADVERTISEMENT


Join Group

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email